Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

paul vandenbrink wrote:

>But as for expecting people to use all of the more sensible Roman
>spellings when they are available is asking a bit much.
>We have all had teachers drill into us the importance of "Proper"
>spelling.
> If more people would use thru, hi, plow instead of through, high,
>plough, I'd be surprised.
>In fact, I only use Hi when it has the meaning of a greeting.
>A standardized Roman Spelling in the manner that you are thinking of,
>would probably only be tolerable for the majority, if they had easy
>recourse to the Alterate Phonetic Alphabet. So we need to go full
>speed ahead at teaching and desseminating information about the Shaw
>Phonetic Alphabet.
>
>
Paul, you are absolutely correct, English Roman spelling cannot be
easily rationalized, not even with a few of the worst words. It's
because of the way spelling is taught, as well as the limitations of the
Roman alphabet. When the spelling bears little resemblence to the
pronunciation, the only way to teach spelling is to insist on a rigid
discipline, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. The teachers
make students feel foolish if they misspell a word, and so do other
students. It's driven into their heads that you dare not innovate in
your spelling, and so we don't. We don't want to look like idiots, and
so we continue to spell like idiots! No wonder some children have
reading disorders!

Theodore Seuss Geisel (Dr. Seuss) published an early book of comics,
entitled "The tough coughs as he ploughs the dough". I guess he noticed
the problem, too.

The chief advantages of using Shavian rather than some rationalized
Roman system are the clean slate (no foolish traditions) and the
simplicity of the alphabet (no digraphs or diacritics to confuse the
learner). That it looks good is an added bonus!

--
Ethan Lamoreaux - ·𐑰𐑔𐑩𐑯 ·𐑤𐑨𐑥𐑩𐑮𐑴

Paul and Ethan,

There is a difference between getting someone to read a non-standard or
non-traditional writing system and getting them to write messages in it. One
reason for not wanting to write in a new code is the loss of communication
efficiency. The main reason, however, is that most people simply do not want to
learn to spell again.

Logographic (word-sign) spelling is good enough to communicate ideas.

If you organized a public meeting and presented your reform spelling system;
About 65% of the audience would give regularized English their endorsement.
However, less than 1 % would ever try to use it. The challenge is getting
people to write using a new code.

There are hundreds of more sensible Roman spellings of English and most of
them can be read without a key. They are not, however, as easy to read as the
dictionary spelling because dicitonary spellings have been memorized as
whole words. Meaning signs do not have to be "sounded out".

Beginning readers who sound out every letter read very slow.

Spelling preference studies would quickly show a preference for word
spellings that are the most familiar. When the spelling society published in New
Spelling, everyone could read the documents but they were read much slower than
the same document in traditional spelling. People prefer material in a
familiar code. One that they can read rapidly.

I tend to misspell phonetically so there is a chance that phonemic spelling
would be preferred for words that were not seen frequently enough to be
memorized as word-signs.

Craig Jackson asks - Y doant teecherz giv credit for FONETIK speling?
Phonemic invented spelling tends to be a stage in spelling skill development.
Teachers should give some credit when the student misspels a word in a way that
communicates. acomodate is not a terrible misspelling. A bad spelling is
one that confuses or slows down a reader.

Eliminating the vowels in non stressed syllables seems to be workable. Ther
ar hundrds v mor sensibl Romn spelngz v Englsh n most f them can b red
without a ke. Letters for function words probably slowed you down but not the
shorter spelling of unstressed syllables. This code is more radical than cut
spelling (see _www.spellingsociety.org_ (http://www.spellingsociety.org)
keyword cut spelling).

-----------------------------

paul vandenbrink wrote:

>But as for expecting people to use all of the more sensible Roman
>spellings when they are available is asking a bit much.

SB: As C.F. Hockett said, people are more likely to switch their religion
than to change their orthography.

>We have all had teachers drill into us the importance of "Proper" spelling.
> If more people would use thru, hi, plow instead of through, high, plough,
I'd be surprised.

SB: This is what Teddy Roosevelt recommended - thru hi plow hav giv.... are
shorter and more phonemic than through high plough have give.... so why do
peole prefer the archaic spellings? The best explanation is that the older
spellings have more prestige. Using these spelling conventions avoids being
labeled as ignorant and uneducated.

SB: The prestige factor could be modified thru education. Shaw asked, Can
we make anti phonetic spelling unfashionable?
_http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/preprint6-jsss.htm_ (http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/preprint6-jsss.htm)
With the support of the teaching profession, I think we could.

>PV: In fact, I only use Hi when it has the meaning of a greeting.
>A standardized Roman Spelling in the manner that you are thinking of,
>would probably only be tolerable for the majority, if they had easy
>recourse to the Alterate Phonetic Alphabet. So we need to go full
>speed ahead at teaching and desseminating information about the Shaw
>Phonetic Alphabet.

SB: You would first have to explain why the Shaw alphabet was superior to
Webster dialcritics or IPA. hí or hai vs hF

(ETHAN) Paul, you are absolutely correct, English Roman spelling cannot be
easily rationalized, not even with a few of the worst words. It's
because of the way spelling is taught, as well as the limitations of the
Roman alphabet.

SB: Sweet argued that the problem was not with the alphabet. Roman does not
have enough symbols to cover all of the sounds in Germanic languages but
this shortage can be handled by digraphs and accent marks. The problem is
irrationality in the use of Roman.

SB: Twain and Shaw argued that simplified spelling was ugly and jarring to
those who had overlearned the traditional spellings. Both advocated non-roman
phonemic spelling.

(ETHAN) When the spelling bears little resemblence to the
pronunciation, the only way to teach spelling is to insist on a rigid
discipline, regardless of whether it makes sense or not.

SB: You really can't teach traditional spelling. All you can do is ask
students to memorize sight words. This is not teaching. You could teach the 5
most common spelling patterns for 41 speech sounds (or phonemes). You can
teach phonemic spelling but that does not allow you to determine the correct
spelling in a particular situation.
(see _www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett_ (http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett) )

(ETHAN) The teachers make students feel foolish if they misspell a word, and
so do other
students. It's driven into their heads that you dare not innovate in
your spelling, and so we don't. We don't want to look like idiots, and
so we continue to spell like idiots! No wonder some children have
reading disorders!

Why are words like Aphasia hard to remember, and words like Dyslexia
hard to spell?

--Star

=========
http://www.livejournal.com/users/wodentoad

Numfar! Do the Dance of Joy!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

If you work from the dictionary key spelling.... it helps a little.

SAMPA WEBSTER Classic Unifon ENgliS
Shavian Keyboard


@fAZi@ àfáZÿà &'fA-zh(E-)& ufAZEu afAZEa
afEZ(i)a

dis'leksi@ dìslexÿà disleksEu disleksEa
disleksia

a = &
ph = f
a = á
si = Zÿ = zhE
a = &

None of the letters in this word are transparent or straight forward.
u for schwa in these words is very odd and non-intuitive.
a works fairly well. However, few are ever taught that a = schwa.
The schwi after Z is optional. It is not always pronounced.

--Steve



Why are words like Aphasia hard to remember, and words like
Dyslexia hard to spell?

--Star

--- stbetta@... missed the joke when he said:

>
> If you work from the dictionary key spelling.... it helps a little.
>
> SAMPA WEBSTER Classic Unifon
> ENgliS
> Shavian Keyboard
>
>
> @fAZi@ �f�Z�� &'fA-zh(E-)& ufAZEu afAZEa
>
> afEZ(i)a
>
> dis'leksi@ d�slex�� disleksEu
> disleksEa
> disleksia
>
> a = &
> ph = f
> a = �
> si = Z� = zhE
> a = &
>
> None of the letters in this word are transparent or straight forward.
> u for schwa in these words is very odd and non-intuitive.
> a works fairly well. However, few are ever taught that a = schwa.
> The schwi after Z is optional. It is not always pronounced.
>
> --Steve
>
>
>
> Why are words like Aphasia hard to remember, and words like
> Dyslexia hard to spell?
>
> --Star
>
>

It's a saying amongst my community because many of us are aphasic, that
is, we can't often remember words, but all the talk of axioms I wanted
to throw in my own adage.

That's okay, Steve.
--Star

=========
http://www.livejournal.com/users/wodentoad

Numfar! Do the Dance of Joy!



____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Hi Steve

I think you went a little bit off the topic, but let me see if I can
follow you.
First, we are not interested in the people who can spell perfect
English in Roman or who are literate enough to use a spell-checker
properly. (Unfortunately, spell checker programs still expect the
writer to pick the right alternative from a list) If they can use a
Phonetic Alphabet fine, but as you say most of them can't be bothered
to use it, even if they recognize Phonetic spelling.
So lets look at how many people you are talking about. People who can
speak English clearly and and write down correctly what they are
sayng.
First, these people are definately a minority of the people who speak
English.
They have a privileged position in our society, and the illiterates
hide in the background, and work around their handicap. So maybe you
didn't notice.

Let's look at the more sizable minority of people who are
functionally illiterate.
1. Pre-literate children
2. Children learning to read
3. Foreigners with a second language level of English understanding.
4. Foreigners who speak a different variety of English, where Roman
Spelling doesn't come close to representing their speech.
5. Uneducated or unsuccessfully educated Adults.
In Canada, 25% of the people in High School are unable to pass a
simple 7th grade Literacy test. (From your work, you are familar with
people who can puzzle out words but not really write) I suspect our
education system produces similar or better results than the USA.
6. Seniors who have allowed their ability to lapse or diminish
through other physical handicaps or lack of practise.

Now, what is left, you say. Two minorities do not make a whole.
The most sizable minority is the people whose literacy is functional
and yet limited to the necessities of our technological culture.
Did you ever think that all those crude misspelling (Shortcuts) of
Text messaging might be the best they can do without resorting to the
ubiquitous Dictionary. They can fill in the fields of a form, but not
write a clear sentence.

Now let's look at the benefits of an Auxillary Phonetic Spelling
system. You spell the few words you know, and when you get to a word
you can not spell, you just write it Phonetically and go on.
If you are on a Computer, you can ask the computer to replace the
Phonetic Spelling, or may the person who receives the message does
it. No, big deal. Ideally, you would use Shavian letters, but if you
had to, you could use CUT or some other Romanized Phonetic spelling,
You would just have to put the word in quotes.
Ideally, any educated person should be able to decipher the Phonetic
spelling without resorting to a Computer Program or Phonetic
Dictionary.
They don't have to write. They just have to recognize that odd word
in quotes was written phonetically.
And to figure out that word, they would only have to know the 45 or
so sounds of English and the letters that represent them. They would
then have to be able to sound out a word written in those letters.

This does not really slow communication down to any great extent.
It actually enhances communication, when you need to pass along a new
Ad-Hoc word or name with an unusual pronunciation.

As I mentioned before we need to make an easy to use Hybrid Solution,
rather than expecting people to switch.
It is the Illiterate and Semi-literate people that we need to direct
our attention to.
You do not teach Sign Language to the hearing.
It is nice if the Literate People will loosen up their preconceived
notions about Literacy equalling Intelligence and Vice Versa.

Regards, Paul V.

P.S. Thanks for saying that:
> Eliminating the vowels in non stressed syllables seems to be
workable. Ther ar hundrds v mor sensibl Romn spelngz v Englsh n
most f them can b red without a ke. Letters for function words
probably slowed you down but not the
> shorter spelling of unstressed syllables. This code is more
radical than cut spelling.

I think reducing these vowel letters is workable because there is
already a tendancy in spoken English to minimize
unstressed vowels down to a Schwa, Schwi, Schwer or nothing at all.
See how the pronunciation of the word interesting has gone from
in'ter'es'ting -> in'ta'res-ting -> in'tres'ting


P.P.S. By the way, the Illiterates and Semi-Literates would never
know about your hypothetical Public meeting, because we would
advertise it, in print.
_______________attached__________________________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, stbetta@a... wrote:
> Paul and Ethan,
>
> There is a difference between getting someone to read a non-
standard or
> non-traditional writing system and getting them to write messages
in it. One
> reason for not wanting to write in a new code is the loss of
communication
> efficiency. The main reason, however, is that most people simply
do not want to
> learn to spell again.
>
> Logographic (word-sign) spelling is good enough to communicate
ideas.
>
> If you organized a public meeting and presented your reform
spelling system;
> About 65% of the audience would give regularized English their
endorsement.
> However, less than 1 % would ever try to use it. The challenge
is getting
> people to write using a new code.
>
> There are hundreds of more sensible Roman spellings of English and
most of
> them can be read without a key. They are not, however, as easy to
read as the
> dictionary spelling because dicitonary spellings have been
memorized as
> whole words. Meaning signs do not have to be "sounded out".
>
> Beginning readers who sound out every letter read very slow.
>
> Spelling preference studies would quickly show a preference for
word
> spellings that are the most familiar. When the spelling society
published in New
> Spelling, everyone could read the documents but they were read
much slower than
> the same document in traditional spelling. People prefer material
in a
> familiar code. One that they can read rapidly.
>
> I tend to misspell phonetically so there is a chance that phonemic
spelling
> would be preferred for words that were not seen frequently enough
to be
> memorized as word-signs.
>
> Craig Jackson asks - Y doant teecherz giv credit for FONETIK
speling?
> Phonemic invented spelling tends to be a stage in spelling skill
development.
> Teachers should give some credit when the student misspels a word
in a way that
> communicates. acomodate is not a terrible misspelling. A bad
spelling is
> one that confuses or slows down a reader.
>
> Eliminating the vowels in non stressed syllables seems to be
workable. Ther
> ar hundrds v mor sensibl Romn spelngz v Englsh n most f them can b
red
> without a ke. Letters for function words probably slowed you down
but not the
> shorter spelling of unstressed syllables. This code is more
radical than cut
> spelling (see _www.spellingsociety.org_
(http://www.spellingsociety.org)
> keyword cut spelling).
>
> -----------------------------
>
> paul vandenbrink wrote:
>
> >But as for expecting people to use all of the more sensible Roman
> >spellings when they are available is asking a bit much.
>
> SB: As C.F. Hockett said, people are more likely to switch their
religion
> than to change their orthography.
>
> >We have all had teachers drill into us the importance
of "Proper" spelling.
> > If more people would use thru, hi, plow instead of through,
high, plough,
> I'd be surprised.
>
> SB: This is what Teddy Roosevelt recommended - thru hi plow hav
giv.... are
> shorter and more phonemic than through high plough have give....
so why do
> peole prefer the archaic spellings? The best explanation is that
the older
> spellings have more prestige. Using these spelling conventions
avoids being
> labeled as ignorant and uneducated.
>
> SB: The prestige factor could be modified thru education. Shaw
asked, Can
> we make anti phonetic spelling unfashionable?
> _http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/preprint6-jsss.htm_
(http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/preprint6-jsss.htm)
> With the support of the teaching profession, I think we could.
>
> >PV: In fact, I only use Hi when it has the meaning of a greeting.
> >A standardized Roman Spelling in the manner that you are thinking
of,
> >would probably only be tolerable for the majority, if they had
easy
> >recourse to the Alterate Phonetic Alphabet. So we need to go full
> >speed ahead at teaching and desseminating information about the
Shaw
> >Phonetic Alphabet.
>
> SB: You would first have to explain why the Shaw alphabet was
superior to
> Webster dialcritics or IPA. hí or hai vs hF
>
> (ETHAN) Paul, you are absolutely correct, English Roman spelling
cannot be
> easily rationalized, not even with a few of the worst words. It's
> because of the way spelling is taught, as well as the limitations
of the
> Roman alphabet.
>
> SB: Sweet argued that the problem was not with the alphabet.
Roman does not
> have enough symbols to cover all of the sounds in Germanic
languages but
> this shortage can be handled by digraphs and accent marks. The
problem is
> irrationality in the use of Roman.
>
> SB: Twain and Shaw argued that simplified spelling was ugly and
jarring to
> those who had overlearned the traditional spellings. Both advocated
non-roman
> phonemic spelling.
>
> (ETHAN) When the spelling bears little resemblence to the
> pronunciation, the only way to teach spelling is to insist on a
rigid
> discipline, regardless of whether it makes sense or not.
>
> SB: You really can't teach traditional spelling. All you can do
is ask
> students to memorize sight words. This is not teaching. You
could teach the 5
> most common spelling patterns for 41 speech sounds (or phonemes).
You can
> teach phonemic spelling but that does not allow you to determine
the correct
> spelling in a particular situation.
> (see _www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett_
(http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett) )
>
> (ETHAN) The teachers make students feel foolish if they misspell a
word, and
> so do other
> students. It's driven into their heads that you dare not innovate
in
> your spelling, and so we don't. We don't want to look like
idiots, and
> so we continue to spell like idiots! No wonder some children have
> reading disorders!

Hi Star
I agree
All these old Greek words do seem a little out of place in amongst
our more solid Anglo-Saxon and Norman words.
But that's English for you. It never met a word it didn't like.
I tried to bring back the tried and true old word Doubloon
for our new 2 Dollar coin, but people persisted in using the new word
toonie.
So now we have Looney Tooney Money, here in Canada.

As for Aphasia, it is an important word for a common disability, but
most people don't know what is.

Aphasia is an impairment of language, affecting the production or
comprehension of speech and the ability to read. Aphasia is almost
always due to injury to the brain, most commonly from a stroke,
particularly in older individuals.
I think all of us have experianced an instance of Anomic aphasia, as
in when a specific word is at the Tip of our tongue. But we can't
produce it.
Back and forth speech communication is a much more complicated
behavior than we might suspect, using a number of intertwined mental
facilities. But it is hard to get a handle on. Take a look at the
varieties of Aphasia below.

Regards, Paul V.

P.S More specific examples of types of Aphasia

Global aphasia - This is the most severe form of aphasia, and is
applied to patients who can produce few recognizable words and
understand little or no spoken language. Global aphasics can neither
read nor write. Global aphasia may often be seen immediately after
the patient has suffered a stroke and it may rapidly improve if the
damage has not been too extensive. However, with greater brain
damage, severe and lasting disability may result.

Broca's aphasia - This is a form of aphasia in which speech output is
severely reduced and is limited mainly to short utterances, of less
than four words. Vocabulary access is limited in persons with Broca's
aphasia, and their formation of sounds is often laborious and clumsy.
The person may understand speech relatively well and be able to read,
but be limited in writing. (Obviously writing will affected if you
are limited to 4 word sentences.) Broca's aphasia is often referred
to as a 'non fluent aphasia' because of the halting and effortful
quality of speech.

Mixed non-fluent aphasia - This term is applied to patients who have
sparse and effortful speech, resembling severe Broca's aphasia.
However, unlike persons with Broca's aphasia, they remain limited in
their comprehension of speech and do not read or write beyond an
elementary level. Wernicke's aphasia - In this form of aphasia the
ability to grasp the meaning of spoken words is chiefly impaired,
while the ease of producing connected speech is not much affected.
Therefore Wernicke's aphasia is referred to as a 'fluent aphasia.'
However, speech is far from normal. Sentences do not hang together
and irrelevant words intrude-sometimes to the point of jargon, in
severe cases. Reading is often severely impaired.

Anomic aphasia This term is applied to persons who are left with a
persistent inability to supply the words for the very things they
want to talk about-particularly the significant nouns and verbs. As a
result their speech, while fluent in grammatical form and output is
full of vague circumlocutions and expressions of frustration. They
understand speech well, and in most cases, read adequately.
Difficulty finding words is as evident in writing as in speech.
_______________attached______________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Star Raven
<celestraof12worlds@y...> wrote:
> Why are words like Aphasia hard to remember, and words like Dyslexia
> hard to spell?

Hi Star
Was that a trick question?
Is there a name for a mental disabilty, where the person is too
literal minded (gullible)?
Low Low Regards, Paul V.
P.S. I always had trouble spelling Greek words.
Come on, "psychology". They have got to be kidding.
_________attached__________________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink"
<pvandenbrink11@h...> wrote:
> Hi Star
> I agree
> All these old Greek words do seem a little out of place in amongst
> our more solid Anglo-Saxon and Norman words.
> But that's English for you. It never met a word it didn't like.
> I tried to bring back the tried and true old word Doubloon
> for our new 2 Dollar coin, but people persisted in using the new
word
> toonie.
> So now we have Looney Tooney Money, here in Canada.
>
> As for Aphasia, it is an important word for a common disability,
but
> most people don't know what is.
>
> Aphasia is an impairment of language, affecting the production or
> comprehension of speech and the ability to read. Aphasia is almost
> always due to injury to the brain, most commonly from a stroke,
> particularly in older individuals.
> I think all of us have experianced an instance of Anomic aphasia,
as
> in when a specific word is at the Tip of our tongue. But we can't
> produce it.
> Back and forth speech communication is a much more complicated
> behavior than we might suspect, using a number of intertwined
mental
> facilities. But it is hard to get a handle on. Take a look at the
> varieties of Aphasia below.
>
> Regards, Paul V.
>
> P.S More specific examples of types of Aphasia
>
> Global aphasia - This is the most severe form of aphasia, and is
> applied to patients who can produce few recognizable words and
> understand little or no spoken language. Global aphasics can
neither
> read nor write. Global aphasia may often be seen immediately after
> the patient has suffered a stroke and it may rapidly improve if the
> damage has not been too extensive. However, with greater brain
> damage, severe and lasting disability may result.
>
> Broca's aphasia - This is a form of aphasia in which speech output
is
> severely reduced and is limited mainly to short utterances, of less
> than four words. Vocabulary access is limited in persons with
Broca's
> aphasia, and their formation of sounds is often laborious and
clumsy.
> The person may understand speech relatively well and be able to
read,
> but be limited in writing. (Obviously writing will affected if you
> are limited to 4 word sentences.) Broca's aphasia is often referred
> to as a 'non fluent aphasia' because of the halting and effortful
> quality of speech.
>
> Mixed non-fluent aphasia - This term is applied to patients who
have
> sparse and effortful speech, resembling severe Broca's aphasia.
> However, unlike persons with Broca's aphasia, they remain limited
in
> their comprehension of speech and do not read or write beyond an
> elementary level. Wernicke's aphasia - In this form of aphasia the
> ability to grasp the meaning of spoken words is chiefly impaired,
> while the ease of producing connected speech is not much affected.
> Therefore Wernicke's aphasia is referred to as a 'fluent aphasia.'
> However, speech is far from normal. Sentences do not hang together
> and irrelevant words intrude-sometimes to the point of jargon, in
> severe cases. Reading is often severely impaired.
>
> Anomic aphasia This term is applied to persons who are left with a
> persistent inability to supply the words for the very things they
> want to talk about-particularly the significant nouns and verbs. As
a
> result their speech, while fluent in grammatical form and output is
> full of vague circumlocutions and expressions of frustration. They
> understand speech well, and in most cases, read adequately.
> Difficulty finding words is as evident in writing as in speech.
> _______________attached______________________
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Star Raven
> <celestraof12worlds@y...> wrote:
> > Why are words like Aphasia hard to remember, and words like
Dyslexia
> > hard to spell?

> As for Aphasia, it is an important word for a common disability, but
> most people don't know what is.
>

When I was small I had my father's sense of humor. Apparently he got it
back now that I'm grown. It was intended to be an attention breaker
from the Axioms.

I'm very well informed about aphasia and its types because I have been
diagnosed with it. Believe me. I know, and I know where it's going,
which isn't good.

Yeesh...
--Um... oh... the... oh yeah: Star

=========
http://www.livejournal.com/users/wodentoad

Numfar! Do the Dance of Joy!



____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

I've been following recent e-mails with interest, but am currently more
concerned with the appearance of the Shaw alphabet than with its uses in
spelling reform, teaching literacy or as a phonetic tool. For some time I
have been downloading texts and reformatting them for ease of reading on
the computer screen : HTML format, large point size, serif font,
anti-aliasing, left-aligned text, double blanks between sentences, word
wrap enabled, grey or green background and so on. These are my own
preferences and they differ from the norms for printed material. Shavian
is different again. I have re-worked some of Androcles, whch is the only
model available. That is a play, complete with stage directions, and uses
are found for italics and bold texts, for which there are separate font
faces, as well as for plain and square brackets. When I turned to Jane
Austen, hoping for a plain text stream, rather like listening to a book
being read aloud, I found there were other problems. I want the output to
look nice, but if it is too smooth and regular it will be difficult to
read. More specifically, which effects are needed and which choices must I
make from those below :--
Emphatic punctuation with curved commas and apostrophes or straight lines
and single quotes
Emphasis through bold, italics, underlining or continental style l i k e t
h i s, or Turkish like (this).
What about abbreviations? (Mr. Bingley, Mr Bingley, mr Bingley, mister
Bingley, M:R, m-r)
Portait or landscape? What is the ideal line length for Shavian?
The __shire militia. They lived at Wh_rt_n. looong vowels. lloudd sounds.
Concatenation of words, at least in speech : He maybe coming at fiveoclock
tomorrowafternoon.
jb